NYU Law Professor Richard Pildes has written an essay that generally says the U.S. was better off when most states did not use presidential primaries. Here he summarizes the essay. Most states did not use presidential primaries before 1972.
NYU Law Professor Richard Pildes has written an essay that generally says the U.S. was better off when most states did not use presidential primaries. Here he summarizes the essay. Most states did not use presidential primaries before 1972.
Good read.
The elected officials “ranking” contenders and that getting public will never happen. In this era of politics everyone runs against politics as usual. Plus you’d have endorsements people would rather not state publicly, such as the Congressional Black Caucus originally supporting Hillary Clinton instead of Barack Obama in the 2008 primary.
The comparison to Westminster-style leader selection I’m not sure is a valid comparison. While Corbyn and Truss admittedly turned out to be complete disasters in selections, the difference there is that while in the U.S. our primaries are selecting a choice for executive, in the UK they are selecting a choice to run the legislature. The UK and Canada systems imposed here would be having party members select the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi’s and Kevin McCarthy’s leadership role, which if you asked Congressmen they would find absurd.
One change I would think is valid is I don’t understand how “right of association” does not prevent non-party members from having input into the party nominee.
NOOOO extremist hack caucuses, primaries and conventions.
NONPARTISAN execs/judics –APPV — pending Condorcet/APPV = RCV done right.
Per Ryan, would Democrats find choosing “Prime Minister Pelosi” absurd? Republicans might just, with McCarthy. (Not a member of either duopoly party myself.) Also, it wouldn’t be just Congress making that selection, at least not necessarily. For instance, in the UK, as late as MacMillan’s time, Conservatives, per Wiki’s article on Mac, had no formal mechanism for choosing a new party leader. Here in the States, a party’s members of Congress in caucus could allow governors to vote at 100 percent, and, say state legislators to vote at 10 percent.
Corbyn was a disaster but NOT for the reason Keir Starmer and his Old New Old Labour groupies claim. Corbyn’s not antisemitic above all. (If you don’t believe me, go read Mondoweiss.) Now, did he screw the pooch on Brexit, promising the party caucus he would be vigorously pro-Remain, then abscond to Europe for most of the referendum period? Yes, and as someone from here in the States who rejects New Labour, I hold Jezza accountable there.
https://www.ksl.com/article/50501480/1-in-10-americans-over-65-have-dementia-study-finds
How many of them are voting in 2022-2024 ???
The garbage comment on October 25, 2022 at 8:31 pm is from Robert K Stock.
I follow Canadian politics a good bit because I find it interesting and it’s a Westminster system that’s been kinda sorta Americanized.
The Conservatives to select party leader have a system where each Parliament district is given equal weight and you get points based on the percentage you get in each district regardless of if that district has a lot of Conservative Party members or not. There’s also an RCV component although Pierre Poillievre didn’t need it to destroy everyone a mlnth or so ago. Both main U.S. parties do this too up to a point. The GOP for example assigns 3 delegates per congressional district, but then there are “performance bonuses” where states that elect more
Republicans get more weight.
The New Democratic Party in contrast are a one member one vote party after previously being the union party like British Labour that gave the union membership so much of the vote. The downside of that is the NDP are very regionally based, so some parts of the country that the NDP want to cater to in order to achieve more power, there is little voice. And right now the NDP in Parliament half their caucus are from British Columbia.
“One suggestion is to structure the awarding of delegates from primaries in a way that makes a brokered convention, in which party figures would have to play a key role, more likely.”
The easiest, quickest way to do that without abandoning the primary system altogether is to use approval voting in the primaries, with delegates being awarded proportionally. This would almost certainly guarantee that a large field of candidates, each with a significant number of delegates makes it to the conventions.
But, in the long run, the problem is that the President is just much too powerful. The article itself hints at this. IMO, as I have said before, the US shouldconsider adopting the Swiss system of a joint executive, in which the role of Commander-in-Chief is changed every year.
Do you expect that to be considered? Especially when members of both main parties increasingly now favor a strong presidency (at least when their side holds it).
This is part of my frustration with reform-minded individuals of which myself am one. Foresee the future setup that will allow someone to propose that change where two-thirds of both houses of Congress or two-thirds of state legislatures and then three-fourths of states agree. If you can’t, why are you wasting your time on intellectual masturbation?
My quick fix of using approval voting in the primaries requires no constitutional changes.
But, yes, I do not anticipate any significant constitutional change to happen soon.
Nevertheless, my proposal highlights what I think the fundamental problem is: the Presidency is just much too powerful.
PR
NONPARTISAN EXECS/JUDICS VIA APPV
TOTAL SOP —
NOOO EXEC VETOES, NOOO EXEC PARDONS, NOOO LEGISLATIVE EXEC ORDERS
— USA PREZ BAAACK TO 1925
—- KEEP COOL WITH CAL.
ALSO– NOOO PREZ EXEC *AGREEMENTS* WITH FOREIGN REGIMES [DUE TO SCOTUS HACKS APPOINTED BY HACK PREZS]
In fact, approval voting doesn’t even require any change in ballot format. All that is required to make approval voting work is to count all overvotes as valid.
The part of your post I responded to had nothing to deal with approval voting, it was annual Commander-in-Chief turnover.
At some point, we will have to deal with the fact that the US President has too much power.
That point gets closer with each election.
A fundamental constitutional change will be needed to fix that.
It probably won’t be made until things have gotten completely out of hand and we will have to endure a tyrant in the White House.
And, no, we haven’t reached that point yet. But it is coming.
https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=ms-android-att-us&source=android-browser&q=far+side+miracle+occurs#imgrc=5n-o4312jtu8MM
I disagree with Robert K Stock’s comment but I wouldn’t call it a “garbage comment.” Is this Stock character a known troll? Can someone explain what is going on here?
Tyrants in White House since 4 Mar 1933 after 1932 commie election — after commie stuff since 1865/1876/1894/1908/1929.
Much of the tyrant stuff is due to SCOTUS hacks — perversions of 1-8-1 general welfare cl and 1-8-3 inter-state commerce cl
with resulting Prez legis exec orders [subverting USA laws] and legis exec *agreements* [subverting USA treaties].
Perhaps the law professor has a point. My opinion, when states pay for primaries of political parties they are engaging in GOVERNMENT SPEECH.
The potential for Presidential tyranny has existed since the Constitution of 1788 went into effect. The Presidency was tailor made for Washington, who was a generous and genuinely liberal man. But the partisanship came out in the election of 1796 between Adams and Jefferson, and Adams demonstrated the potential of Presidential tyranny with the Alien and Sedition Acts.
The tyrannical tendencies of the Presidency have grown gradually ever since then, getting especially ramped up during wartimes.
Caucuses > primaries
ADVANCED STUDENTS –
IN 1784 AND 1786 THE OLDE ART CONFED CONGRESS PRINTED THE THEN EARLY 1776-1786 STATE CONSTS – BILL OF RIGHTS.
SUCH ITEMS WERE OBVIOUSLY USED IN THE 1787 TOP SECRET FED CONVENTION AND LATER IN THE 1789 CONGRESS – 1-10 AMDTS (1791) + 27 AMDT (1992).
WZ —
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/27/politics/trump-taxes-house/index.html
Appeals court clears way for IRS to turn over Trump tax returns to House committee

By Tierney Sneed and Katelyn Polantz, CNN
Updated 6:35 PM EDT, Thu October 27, 2022
CNN —
The House Ways and Means Committee is set to receive former President Donald Trump’s IRS tax returns in one week after a federal appeals court on Thursday declined Trump’s request to hold up the release.
The Supreme Court could still intervene if Trump appeals.
A three-judge panel on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals decided they won’t put the handover of the former president’s tax returns on hold after the full appeals court rejected Trump’s request that they review an earlier decision allowing for the release of the returns.
The case is one of several long-running lawsuits where the Democratic-led House is trying to access years of financial records related to Trump, especially his tax returns.
Attorneys for Trump handling the case didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
—-
Stay tuned for any SCOTUS machination.